About 25 years ago, I worked alongside a great marketing thinker called Stephen King, and was honoured to be taught something about the higher and more intellectual sides of marketing by him. No, he was not the pot-boiler author, but a gentleman who worked for a major international advertising agency in London.
One thing he said, hardly ever quoted for some reason (for it would stop all this Alan Sugar Apprentice-dancing nonsense in its tracks) was “Ask not if there is a Gap In The Market, but if there is actually a Market In The Gap.” He corroborated the advice of the great 70s/80s London adman Peter Marsh, who spotted long before all the self-narcissists (who hated him) that “80% of all new products and businesses fail”.
The issue here today is “bio fuels”. The idea is at one time and moment so appealing to both greenazis and gumment-people. It also seems so logical to persons who, through the depradations of education’s British-State-driven deconstruction, do not know any more how to think while using maths and science. What you do, you see, is you use “surplus land” (I did not know there was any) to hoover up Carbon Dioxide into plants like oilseed rape, whereby you then only put back out what you hoovered in when you burn the expensively-extracted product. Simple! No “carbon footprint”!
This all sounds so good, and yet, and yet………..so I posted an earllier version of this, a short while ago on another forum, and I think it summarises my position :-
IT IS A MONSTROUSLY EVIL AND WICKED THING to grow “biofuels”, on land that is for growing food for people. AND for profit.
Most people are poor. All the time, all their lives. Even in what geography teachers call MEDCs. That’s life mostly, and then you die. People want and need cheap food, which is why they all love Tesco and beat a path to its doors, and “cheap food” is NOT an obsession as the poor, sad, demented Prince of Wales thinks. He will have to go, but that’s another story, and no, I am a Monarchist and not a Republican.
45 years ago, the world did not have enough food for all its people, and our population was a little under 3 billion. Now, it is 6.6 billion, and (nearly) everyone can be fed, barring the wretched populations wretching eternally it seems, under the heels of Jerks in sunspecs who ride in Mercs, in places such as, er, Africa. This is not the fault of, for example, the African Peoples, whom we, the British (I can’t recall the French or the Belgians doing that much in this regard?) showed could grow lots of stuff well, most of the time. Rhodesia; look at Southern Rhodesia now, and weep. Nor indeed is it their fault that they have no power to remove and execute the Socialist Merc-chauffeured-Jerks who tyrannise them. You must blame the socialists’ “Long March through the West’s institutions” for that. We allowed the disgusting buggers to get professorships in fine universities, and so to do it, to f*** up all these poor wretched people’s lives for them, while we left, and then waited.
But, who do we think did this miraculous thing, to make it possible to feed all (nearly) of us - a great advance on the mass starvation that faced many in 1960, and was facing more by the day?
Scientists. Biologists actually, and it was called at the time the “Green Revolution”. The world’s ”developed nations” were going to become, as a matter of morality and with the help of plant and animal-breeding techniques, the planet’s breadbaskets, and English children were taught how grand it was that so-and-so counties were “the most efficient mechanical farm in the world”, in geography lessons, for Christ’s sake. ”Green-ness” in the starving 1960s meant hard work, science and mechanisation, and it did not have then the degrader-Nazi connotations that I now want this particularly evil, false and wicked abstraction to begin to acquire.
Other scientists also found FUEL. American and British ones mostly, and in the obvious places like coalfields - long known - and the Muddle East, where the stuff was almost bursting out of the ground; clearly, no evidence of finding and characterising of the stuff by “earlier civilisations” then.
Fuel was GIVEN TO US, in the ground, as oil and gas and coal, for God’s Sake (literally.) The intellectual power and humility of Scientists, acting as they invariably do in the end, whether they know it or not, to Glorify His Name by exposing - for all - the wonders of His Creation. Read the General Scholarium of the Principia, you snivelling socialists and atheist greenazis who may be listening in here, and start for once to wonder about what we think and do all day, and get a life for a change. That writer, and we who have come after him, have given Humanity this one opportunity.
Just this one opportunity, to BRIDGE the GAP, between darkness, one-planet-oblivion and final inevitable stellar death (after which there will be no life here) and the sunlit uplands of Nuclear energy that lie just, only just (just now, not before now, or in the future) over the horizon, and a cilivisation that will continue somewhere beyond this solar system, as it indeed will have to if we are to go on. So, why “grow” fuel?
And now?
The Miliperson in poised to say we want to throw this all away?
What about land for food? Even if life on Earth will ends and soon, people still need food. What possible evil, what possible justification, could be adduced for saying that we need land to grow “fuels”? Is this the dark ages, or what?
The thing is, “bio fuels” will only get used if people are forced to buy them through gumment interference in what would be an otherwise free market for energy. If the market for energy was “perfect”, that is to say, not impinged on by gumment chappies at all, then by now most of the world’s electrical energy would be generated by Nuclear stations, “pollution” would be by way of becoming a non-problem (it nearly already is) and “fossil fuels” (not really fossil at all, just ask about five randomly-chosen cosmologists) could be used as sources of interesting chemicals with high-value uses.
For Life, Liberty and Property
